This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34524641

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Divorce ruling: Women await hidden wealth decision Divorce ruling: Women await hidden wealth decision
(about 4 hours later)
Two women who want their divorce settlements increased because they say their ex-husbands misled courts are to hear the Supreme Court's ruling later.Two women who want their divorce settlements increased because they say their ex-husbands misled courts are to hear the Supreme Court's ruling later.
Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil say the men hid the true extent of their wealth when the deals were made.Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil say the men hid the true extent of their wealth when the deals were made.
The BBC's Clive Coleman said it was the "first time in a generation" the court had examined how much a person can lie about assets before a divorce deal can be scrapped or re-negotiated. The BBC's Clive Coleman said it was the "first time in a generation" the court had examined how much a person can lie about assets before a divorce deal can be scrapped or renegotiated.
It is a "vexed issue" in law, he said. It was a "vexed issue" in law, he said.
If the court rules in favour of the women, it could pave the way for many more people to seek to re-negotiate settlements. If the court rules in favour of the women, it could pave the way for many more people to seek to renegotiate settlements.
Hidden wealthHidden wealth
Ms Sharland, from Wilmslow in Cheshire, accepted £10m in her 2010 divorce from her husband Charles, a software entrepreneur.Ms Sharland, from Wilmslow in Cheshire, accepted £10m in her 2010 divorce from her husband Charles, a software entrepreneur.
Under the settlement, she would also receive 30% of the proceeds of shares held by her husband in his company, when he sold them.Under the settlement, she would also receive 30% of the proceeds of shares held by her husband in his company, when he sold them.
She believed that represented half of his wealth.She believed that represented half of his wealth.
But it later transpired he had lied about his company's value, as well as plans to float it on the stock market. But it later transpired he had lied about his company's value, as well as plans to float it on the stock market. The financial press valued the business at about £600m.
The financial press valued it at about £600 million - but the Court of Appeal ruled the misleading evidence would not have led to a significantly different divorce settlement. The Court of Appeal ruled the misleading evidence would not have led to a significantly different divorce settlement.
Ms Gohil, from north London, accepted £270,000 and a car as a settlement when she divorced her husband Bhadresh in 2002.Ms Gohil, from north London, accepted £270,000 and a car as a settlement when she divorced her husband Bhadresh in 2002.
In 2010, Mr Gohil was convicted of money laundering and jailed for 10 years.In 2010, Mr Gohil was convicted of money laundering and jailed for 10 years.
At his criminal trial, evidence revealed he had failed to disclose his true wealth during divorce proceedings.At his criminal trial, evidence revealed he had failed to disclose his true wealth during divorce proceedings.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled that information that emerged at his criminal trial could not be used to overturn the couple's settlement.However, the Court of Appeal ruled that information that emerged at his criminal trial could not be used to overturn the couple's settlement.
Christina Blacklaws, a family law solicitor who sits on the Law Society Council and the Family Justice Council, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What all family lawyers are hoping is that justice will be done and seen to be done.
"Clearly it is wrong that somebody can lie to their wife and more importantly perhaps to the court, an agreement is reached on the basis of that... you shouldn't be able to profit from that sort of fraud."
She said the court should provide guidance so that it was "really clear" about when a case should be reopened.
Divorce lawyer Sarah Anticoni told the BBC: "Most people in 2015 still don't know what their spouses are worth.
"So if one person hides something they may be dividing up a much smaller amount than they really believed and that could have a terrible impact upon their children and their own finances for their future."